PICHLER v. UNITE
585 F.3d 741 (2009)
Elizabeth PICHLER; Kathleen Kelly; Russell Christian; Deborah Brown; Seth Nye; Holly Marston; Kevin Quinn; Jose L. Sabastro; Deborah A. Sabastro; Thomas Riley; Amy Riley; Russell Daubert; Carri Daubert,
UNITE (Union of Needletrades, Industrial and Textile Employees, AFL-CIO), a New York Unincorporated Association; Bruce Raynor, a New York Resident; International Brotherhood Teamsters, Does 1-10
National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation Inc., Intervenor in D.C./Appellant.
United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
Argued: February 2, 2009.
Opinion filed: November 13, 2009.
William L. Messenger, Esq., (Argued), William J. Young, Esq., National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, Springfield, VA, Attorney for Intervenor in D.C.-Appellant.
Lawrence T. Hoyle, Esq., (Argued), Arlene Fickler, Esq., Hoyle, Fickler, Herschel & Mathes, Philadelphia, PA, Attorneys for UNITE-Appellee.
Before: McKEE and STAPLETON, Circuit Judges and IRENAS,* Senior District Judge.
McKEE, Circuit Judge.
The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation ("NRTW") appeals the district court's order denying its motion to modify a protective order that restricts access to certain records. For the reasons that follow, we will affirm.I. Factual Background.
In the fall of 2002, the Union of Needletrades, Industrial & Textile Employees AFL-CIO ("UNITE")1 decided to launch a union organizing campaign targeting CINTAS Corporation, the largest domestic employer in the industrial laundry industry. CINTAS employs approximately 28,000 people at 350 locations in the United States and Canada. Many of those employees are female, Black, or Hispanic. UNITE initiated that campaign because it believed that CINTAS was paying low wages, offering poor benefits, and subjecting its employees to unsafe working conditions, discriminatory practices, and violations of various labor laws.2 "CINTAS... is philosophically opposed to unions and union organizing." Pichler v. UNITE,542 F.3d 380, 383 (3d Cir.2008). UNITE therefore believed that its organizing efforts would not be successful unless representatives of the union visited employees' homes because employees would not speak freely on the job where they could be observed by management and exposed to coercion and/or retaliation.
In order to contact CINTAS employees in their homes, UNITE compiled lists of names and addresses of presumed CINTAS workers from a variety of sources. The sources included license plate numbers of cars parked in CINTAS parking lots. The license plate numbers were used to obtain names and addresses of the registered owners of the respective cars from databases containing state motor vehicle records, a technique known as "tagging."